httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Kew <>
Subject Re: DAV and lazy evaluation
Date Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:30:46 GMT
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:11:46 -0700
"Justin Erenkrantz" <> wrote:

> On 3/23/07, Nick Kew <> wrote:
> >
> > I'm developing a DBD-based DAV backend.
> >
> > I've been trying to use lazy evaluation for efficiency.
> > But there are obstacles in the way.
> >
> > I've just added an SQL query to my get_resource method
> > just to determine whether the resource is a collection.
> > I don't think that should be necessary: not every request
> > needs that information about every resource.  And it's
> > very expensive in an operation such as directory listing.
> > This could be fixed if the collection field of dav_resource
> > was a method rather than just a field.
> Eww - that would be a *major* change to all downstream WebDAV
> providers with no possibilities of caching it (unless you add a
> 'hidden' field - which defeats your purpose entirely! - but still
> there's an inappropriate function-call overhead).  Why can't your SQL
> query return that as part of the initial existence test?

The simple usage case where lazy evaluation would help is
in listing a collection.  In terms of a standard filesystem
backend, lazy evaluation could be opendir/readdir, while
setting the collection flag implies a stat() on each entry.
Substitute child nodes in a database, and the stat() becomes
a database lookup.

>  There really
> shouldn't be much overhead here.  My hunch without having *any*
> details provided by you whatsoever is that your SQL schema is
> inappropriate - there are too many instances where the caller needs to
> know whether it's a collection or a specific file.  (For a directory
> listing, it'd almost certainly *need* to know whether the entry is
> itself a directory or not.)

In the case of a recursive listing, that is of course necessary,
and lazy evaluation will do the job.  But I'm not convinced it is
or should be necessary for every listing.  If I run 'ls -l' on a
filesystem, I'm asking for that stat() information.  But if I run
plain 'ls', then it can be lazier.

> > I don't want to propose a bunch of tiny changes like this,
> > but I'm looking towards a possible review of mod_dav.

This could, for example, work by making collection an
enum { YES, NO, DONTKNOW } and calling an evaluation function
in the case of DONTKNOW.

Nick Kew

Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book

View raw message